Legitimate Use Of Force Research Articles

NARRATIVES, VIOLENCE, AND SOCIAL CONFLICTS: THE CASE OF THE 1980S AUTONOMIST SQUATTER MOVEMENT

The relationship between activism, repression, and violent escalation is central to social movement scholarship. The strategic reasons for movements to place “internal brakes” on violence have been mapped, but less is known about how movements create and enforce these brakes. This article argues that narratives play a central role in this process and demonstrates how narratives both enabled and limited violent activism in the 1980s autonomist squatter movement. Although activists acknowledged that the movement's strength relied on its ability to resist the authorities forcefully, there was also an acute awareness among many that violence could easily escalate into a lethal spiral. In response, activists developed narratives that defined the norms for the legitimate use of force and limited violent escalation. They devised narrative strategies to rein in more extremist fellow activists. Narratives often worked to set boundaries on violent activism effectively, but the decline of the movement in the late 1980s was characterized by transgressions into lethal violence and an inability to process or limit these transgressions narratively.

Human Security and Peaceful Coexistence in Islam

Abstract This article contributes to the broader debate on interreligious relations and nonviolence in Islam by examining references to the concept of covenant (ʿahd and mīthāq) in the Qurʾān and specific covenantal documents attributed to Muhammad, the prophet of Islam. Covenants include solemn agreements, bonds, pledges and treaties, and are central to the Qurʾānic narrative of human existence and coexistence as well as the diplomacy of the Prophet, though they are understudied and underrepresented in discourses about Islam. Content analysis is used to identify the commands, narratives and themes concerning covenants in Islam’s primary, preeminent sources. The article shows that covenants in the Qurʾān and Sunnah establish human security and peaceful coexistence as the normative basis of relations between Muslims and non-Muslims, which influenced early interreligious relations but were neglected over time. While Islamic covenants establish a principle of nonviolence, the use of armed force is permitted, in self-defence, in response to armed aggression and treaty violation that threatens peace and security. These findings have profound implications for our understanding of interreligious relations and the legitimate use of force in Islam.

Remedial, institutional or radical? Explaining community responses to violence against women in an NGO programme to prevent violence in Mumbai, India

Despite ambitions in development and global health policy to transform communities into supportive environments for women facing risks of violence, our understanding of how to best engage communities remains incomplete. In particular, there is little evidence on the types of strategies that communities employ to address violence against women (VAW). We aimed to describe and analyse the processes involved in community responses to incidents of VAW in a non-governmental organisation (NGO) violence prevention programme in Mumbai, India. We conducted a grounded theory study involving 30 focus group discussions and 36 semi-structured interviews with 113 community members and 9 NGO staff, as well as over 170 h of field observation. Informed by comparative case study methods, we compared community actions across six informal settlement neighbourhoods. We found considerable variation in the type of action taken across neighbourhoods. This variation was not arbitrary, but reflected systematic cost-benefit considerations in heterogeneous environments, accounting for factors such as trust in neighbours, violent (armed or gang-related) crime, and corruption in state institutions. We found that institutional action was only favoured in neighbourhoods with strong state capacity and high social capital, whilst remedial action—resolving violence through ‘private’ talks in the family and community—and radical action involving extra-judicial violence—became favourable under conditions of weak social capital or low state capacity. Institutional action was, however, sometimes as violent as radical action, as police were reported, sometimes even relied upon, by residents to use force against perpetrators of VAW. We argue that these contextual features oblige policymakers and prevention researchers to grapple with contentious issues such as the legitimate use of force by the state. We caution against maximising community action without a clear vision of the type of action hoped for.

The Role of Criminal Justice Degree Programs in Influencing Use of Force Practices: The Police Supervisor’s Perspective

The effects of street-level police officer higher education and the influence of the first-line police supervisor toward police officer behavior are two areas well-represented within policing research, but little investigation has been conducted to determine if higher education among police supervisors contributes to their ability to lead their subordinates toward meaningful outcomes. The current study investigates the experiences of criminal justice degree holding first-line police supervisors in utilizing the content of their degree programs toward influencing one critical police outcome: legitimate use of force. Qualitative interviews of 21 police supervisors in the United States revealed they generally utilize content from their college experience in two ways while guiding their subordinates’ use of force practices: while deconstructing previous force incidents as instructional tools and in their ability to effectively communicate expectations, although some participants did not find workplace value in their education. Recommendations for future research are included.

THE INTERNATIONAL LEGAL SYSTEM PROHIBITING THE USE OF FORCE IN INTERNATIONAL CONFLICTS

The principle of peaceful Settlement is one of The principles that contemporary international law is keen to establish in international relations. Despite the shift in the rules of this law towards rejecting the use of force in recoloring international conflicts, international practices continue to reveal a non-compliance with rules. This highlights the importance of studying this subject, as states often resort to the threat or use of force in defense of what they perceive as infringement upon their interests, witch in their view, should be at the core of the concerns of international law itself. It raises a fundamental problem of knowing whether the continuous violation of the principle of the prohibition of the use of force to resolve international conflicts is due to the deviation in the behavior of some arrogant states, or to deficiencies in the international legal system for this principle? To answer this problem, it requires, first and foremost, studying the provision of international law related to the principle of prohibition of the use of force, and then examining the reality and justifications for international practices that go beyond this principle, according to the following plan: First topic: the prohibition of the use of force to resolve international conflicts in contempory international law. Demand 1: the legal basis for the prohibition of the use of force. Demand 2: exceptions to the prohibition. Second topic: challenges in international handling of cases of legitimate use of force. Demand1: deviant international practices of the legitimate use of force. Demand 2: new justifications for legitimizing the use of force

Civil war violence and competing legitimacy claims: Evidence from district level courts cases in Nepal

Internal armed conflict is the ultimate instantiation of two actors – the state and a non-state group – challenging the legitimacy of one another. The state primarily responds violently to those who challenge, either violently or non-violently, its legitimacy. To what extent does the violent suppression of rebel activity erode state legitimacy? How does the potential for the use of violence by non-state armed groups and the offer of parallel governance erode state legitimacy? This research develops an argument specific to contested territories where both sides cannot offer model governance but use violence for opposing reasons, namely the rebel group to delegitimize the state and the state to regain its monopoly on the legitimate use of force. Because the use of violence from either side creates a demand for judicial remedies, I conceptualize the degree of legitimacy in terms of the utilization of the state court system in the face of increased violence by the state or non-state armed groups. In line with theoretical expectations, empirical analyses of criminal and civil cases filed in Nepal's district courts during the Maoist insurgency suggest a statistically significant negative impact of the rebel use of violence and their offer of alternative governance on state legitimacy. Similarly, the state's use of violence had a negative and significantly detrimental effect on state legitimacy.

Legitimacy of Using Force as a Fundamental Ingredient for Military Motivation in Robust Peacekeeping Operations

ABSTRACT The notion of legitimacy is essential to motivate soldiers to fight in wars. However, the value of this factor to motivate in operations that do not involve the state’s vital interests – such as peacekeeping – is little explored. Drawing upon theories of the legitimate use of force and combat motivation, I argue that the UN legitimacy of using force to advance peacekeeping mandates is fundamental for the motivation of the blue helmets to carry out risky tasks and fight, as necessary, in robust PKOs. The article begins by proposing an operational definition of legitimacy to use force to advance peacekeeping mandates, a necessary step for effective communication with interviewees in subsequent empirical investigations. Then, it explores the connection between legitimacy and soldiers’ motivation to fight. Lastly, a case study based on interviews with dozens of blue helmets investigates perceptions of the legitimacy to use force and its motivational role in robust PKOs. The results reveal that positive perceptions of the mission legitimacy to use force increase the blue helmets’ motivation to accomplish risky tasks. Consequently, the article points to increasing awareness about the conditions that render the use of force legitimate as a way to improve military performances in robust PKOs.

Introduction toVisual Arts ResearchSpecial Issue, Body Cam: The Visual Regimes of Policing

Introduction to<i>Visual Arts Research</i>Special Issue, Body Cam: The Visual Regimes of Policing

Utopia, war, and justice

Abstract Between 2014 and 2017, Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) morphed from a terrorist organization into a proto-state that held a large swathe of territory, within which its strict interpretation of sharia law was enforced. We argue that ISIS discursively constructed itself politically by appealing to elements of both a traditional Islamic caliphate and a modern legitimate state. Linguistic and semiotic data is presented from political communications through social media that revolve around three key themes, specifically the construction of a utopian state founded on justice and engaged in righteous war, which all rely fundamentally on a conception of the modern state as holding a “monopoly on the legitimate use of force”, in Weber’s definition. We analyze this data from a critical discourse analysis (CDA) perspective, within a theoretical framework that draws on the political sociology of the state and political communications in asymmetric conflicts.

Toward Cherokee Removal: Land, Violence, and the White Man's Chance by Adam J. Pratt

Reviewed by: Toward Cherokee Removal: Land, Violence, and the White Man's Chance by Adam J. Pratt Emilie Connolly (bio) Native Americans, Indigenous, Georgia, Indian removal, Cherokee Toward Cherokee Removal: Land, Violence, and the White Man's Chance. By Adam J. Pratt. (Athens: University of Georgia Press, 2020. Pp. 240. Cloth, $59.95.) Vigilante violence is as American as apple pie, and white men are at it again in Adam J. Pratt's often harrowing account of Georgia's role in Cherokee Indian removal. As any reader of this journal knows, the fraudulent Treaty of New Echota, signed in 1835 by a unauthorized faction of Cherokees, tore away the nation's remaining homelands, which once spanned parts of Virginia, the Carolinas, Kentucky, Tennessee, Alabama, and Georgia. It also dictated Cherokee removal to new territories in present-day Oklahoma, and three years later, the rightly notorious "Trail of Tears" began. Thousands of Cherokee citizens perished while languishing in detention camps, traveling west, or attempting to rebuild their homes in a disease-ridden and destabilized Indian Territory. As Pratt emphasizes, these federal actions against the Cherokee were significant but secondary to Georgia's aggressive and often chaotic ground war, which escalated after the Cherokee's announcement of their republic in an 1827 constitution. Scuttling a Weberian definition of state power as a monopoly on violence, Pratt shows how motley groups claimed and extended Georgia's ostensibly legitimate use of force, from vigilante groups bearing loose authorization from the governor, to a group of horse thieves branded "the Pony Club," to militias serving under federal officials, and every paramilitary variant in between. Pratt argues that terrorizing Cherokee people through bodily harm, murder, rape, and creative expropriation—forms of violence that were state-sanctioned although not always state-controlled—allowed Georgia to claim and eventually conquer Native land. Chapter 1 introduces Georgia's efforts to impose civil order and distribute unceded Cherokee territories. Pratt sees here more than a mere land grab: Georgia's actions aimed at the production of a lawful space in which free men could enjoy equal economic opportunity, or the titular "white man's chance." Chapter 2 introduces the Cherokee, including their adoption of standards of civilization pushed by United States policymakers and missionaries. Pratt here draws heavily and appropriately on historian Julie Reed, whose Serving the Nation demonstrated that timeworn principles of social welfare, rooted in Cherokee kinship practices [End Page 146] and clan law, informed newer institutions like orphanages and schools during the removal crisis (and long after).1 Pratt unfortunately trivializes Reed's argument by referring to Cherokee "community," "culture," and "traditions" as "harmonious," while also imputing to the nation "a romantic conception of nationalism, which they felt entitled them to their land" (32). Chapter 3 analyzes two vigilante groups, the Pony Club and the Slicks. Chapter 4 examines the convergence of federal and state aims in adopting a more aggressive posture against the Cherokee, who continued to defend their homelands as pressure to remove intensified. The discovery of gold in Cherokee territory, and the potential for that gold to serve Georgia's interests, plays a prominent role in this and following chapters. Chapters 5 through 7 cover specific armed groups, namely the state-authorized Georgia Guard and the Georgia militia, and discusses their role in imposing a blood-soaked "order." Drawing primarily on sources produced by Georgia officials and citizens, Pratt sees their ubiquitous states' rights rationale for Indian removal as underpinning state formation and campaign rhetoric. Georgia built institutions to market neighboring Native lands, usually a federal prerogative. Pratt treats Georgia's lottery distribution system as a "radical experiment" in "state-directed economic development" that emblematized the politics of white male equal opportunity (16). State lawmakers also planned to use Cherokee resources—land, but also gold—to supplement and ideally supplant taxation. By delving into the nuts and bolts of how Georgia seized Cherokee possessions, Pratt depicts how the fruits and controversies of this plunder shaped a political landscape already polarized by divisions between the upcountry and distant coastal regions, as well as a coalescing two-party system. In short, readers curious about how Cherokee removal provoked policy and political drama in the state of...

Coloniality, Legitimacy in Statebuilding, and the Use of Force in Africa

In Africa, legitimation and claims to the legitimate use of force are often challenged by the problematic nature of ethnic diversity, amongst other things. Although ethnicity and diversity are not the problems in themselves, the politicisation of ethnicity is. In this paper, we link this to a history of colonisation which clustered multiple ethnic groups together within single sovereign entities around the continent, as well as the current realities of coloniality which has prevented states within the continent from imagining and transcending the European artefact and design of the modern state in Africa. We link the exploratory term coloniality in statebuilding to the failure of African states to overcome the politicisation of ethnicity and ethnic diversity in order to mitigate the problematic nature of democracy in modern African states. This failure leads to challenges of legitimacy in any given state, and ultimately the states’ claim to the legitimate use of force. The resultant symptoms and indicators of such challenges are manifest in the rise of various insurgencies, separatism, and other forms of insecurity. The cases of Kenya, South Sudan, Nigeria, and Somalia are briefly discussed in this article, highlighting the problematic nature of the claims to the legitimate use of force, legitimacy, and the resultant political ethnicity with all its consequences for these states.

Perception, practice and proximity. Qualifying threats as psychological torture in international law.

International law prohibits threats made by state officials when amounting to torture or other forms of ill-treatment (hereafter "ill-treatment"). Yet, there remains a pressing need to better distinguish in practice the threatening acts which amount to torture or illtreatment (and as prohibited) from acts which fall short. Responding to this need, this article reviews the literature and offers a discussion towards functionally conceptualising and, in turn, qualifying threats as torture or ill-treatment. Following a systematic full-text search of databases with the relevant Englishlanguage keywords, journal articles, NGO reports, case-law and UN documents were selected based on their relevance for conceptual, evidentiary and legal critique of threatsas- torture. Prevailing legal reasoning around threats-as-torture centres on the words "real, credible and immediate", with inadequate explication as to their application. To this end, this article proposes that an assessment of the perception of practice and proximity of state authorities to harm could be used to help qualify threats as "real, credible and immediate" and therefore torturous.

Outsourcing Military and Security Functions

In “Are There ‘Inherently Sovereign Functions’ in International Law,” Frédéric Mégret suggests that the fact that international legal practice has sought to preserve a state monopoly over the use of force strengthens the argument that international law considers some functions to be inherently sovereign. Mégret's analysis goes much further than this in seeking to develop a thicker and broader understanding of inherently sovereign functions (ISFs) by reasoning inductively from international human rights law. This essay largely supports this approach through a case study of the approach taken by the United Kingdom to outsourcing military and security functions. It explores an understanding of inherently sovereign functions based on the state's monopoly on the legitimate use of force and claims that outsourcing military and security functions undermines state sovereignty.

Askeri, Politik ve Stratejik bir Araç Olarak Kültürel Mirası Silahlaştırmak

Kültürel mirası hedef alan çatışmalar küresel bir sorun haline gelmiştir. ABD Başkanı Donald Trump’ın İran’ı kültürel miras alanlarını vurmakla tehditleri yeni bir aşamaya gelindiğini göstermiştir. On dokuzuncu yüzyıldan itibaren yerle ve mekânla ilişkili fikirler etnik ulusalcılıkla birlikte düşünülmüştür. Kültürel çeşitlilik toplumsal açıdan kabul etme ya da reddetme şeklinde tezahür etmiş ve çatışmalara neden olmuştur. Buna karşılık kültür mirasını koruma anlayışının son yıllardaki gelişimiyle kültür mirasının özel olmaktan çıkarak, bütün insanlığa ait olduğu ve herkesin ortak mirası olduğu fikirlerini güçlendirmiştir. Savaşlar askeri ve politik savaşlar olarak tasnif edilebilir. Askeri savaşlar kültürel mirasın kısa sürede büyük hasarlar almasına neden olmaktadır. Politik savaşlar genellikle psikolojik, diplomatik, teknolojik ya da kültürel düzeyde gerçekleşmekte; bazen de ticari, finansal, hükümet politikaları gibi çeşitli politikalarla toplulukları yerinden etme şeklinde gerçekleşmektedir. Kültürel mirası çeşitli düzeylerde fiziksel ya da ruhsal olarak fakat dolaylı şekilde ve daha uzun bir zaman dilimi içeresinde etkileyebilmektedir. On dokuzuncu yüzyılın son çeyreğinden başlayarak kültürel miras yapılarını ve tarihi kentleri hedef alma gerekçeleri ve yöntemleri kültürel mirasa yüklenen anlamlarla ilişkili olarak değişmeye başlamıştır. Yakın tarihli çatışmalar kültürel mirasın kimlik ve belleği silmek üzere nasıl silahlaştırılabileceğini göstermektedir. Yirminci yüzyıla kadar büyük imparatorluklar tarafından yönetilen, egemen güçlerin sömürge mücadelelerinin ardından otorite boşluğunun ortaya çıktığı Balkanlar, Afrika, Ortadoğu ülkeleri gibi bölgelerde çatışmalar bir anda patlar ve sıklıkla tekrar eder. Devletlerarası savaşlara göre daha uzun sürer. Çatışmalar, yeterli kaynaklar olduğu sürece ve taraflardan biri ötekine üstünlük sağlayana kadar devam eder. Güç kullanımı devlet tekelinden çıkmıştır. Örgütlü ve yaygın şiddet ortamı yaratan bu türden iç karışıklıklar ya da çatışmalar uluslararası hukuk normlarının dışına çıkmaktadır. Yeni savaşlarda saldırılar toplumların kimlik ve belleğini temsil eden kültürel imgelerini yok etmeye ya da çeşitlilikleri bir araya getiren tarihi kentlere odaklanmıştır. Bu makalede yeni savaşlar konusu kültürel miras bakımından değerlendirilmiştir. Silahlı çatışmalarda ya da savaşlarda kültürel mirasın neden hedef alındığı tarihsel ve yakın örneklerle incelenmiştir. Bu bağlamda kültürel miras için yeni savaşlar gerçekten yeni midir; kültürel mirasın ve kentlerin geçmişteki ve günümüzdeki savaşlardaki/çatışmalardaki rolü ne olmuştur; kültürel miras hangi eylemlerle ve neden hedef alınmıştır gibi sorulara cevap aranmaktadır.

Unilateral Humanitarian Interventions and the Legitimate Use of Force: Article 51 of the United Nations Charter and North American Interpretations

The death of Iranian major general Qasem Soleimani, on January 3, 2020, revived the discussions and interpretations regarding national security on the international scene, the “right to protect”, the legitimate defense and the legality of the attack that caused his death through the United States' unilateral intervention. This is an old worldwide discussion, with countless gaps that need to be filled from the compatibility between international law and domestic law points of view, as well as the legality of intervention, referring to Article 51 of the United Nations Charter about humanitarian intervention or for the legitimate use of force.

Besieged sovereignty: The pandemic and the triple relation between state, international organizations and integral society

The theory of sovereignty has been challenged by the limits established by the international field and tensions, a likely subordination of the internal right to the global community that is governed by rules and principles and not simply by the exercise of power. The pandemic from COVID-19 has provided an opening in the theoretical field of fragmentation of the theory regarding state sovereignty. A new way to materialize sovereignty that, when put into practice, can assume the functions of global governance exercised by an international organization. This ability of exercising state sovereignty, named besieged sovereignty in this document, has the initial goal of justifying the use of this new concept that emerged from a state of global exception, in addition to presenting, briefly, the approach to the validity of legal norms. Two hypotheses will be presented for the field of this research: can there be unilateral and/or plurilateral intervention in state sovereignty in case there is a declaration of a state of emergency, of exception, in the global field? Can there be an authorization of the United Nations Charter for direct intervention on behalf of individual or collective self-defense, in the case of an armed attack upon the nation that represents imminent risk of transmission and spread of the pandemic? We will argue that besieged sovereignty represents a serious risk to state sovereignty and that the international community needs to be actively engaged in ensuring that governments observe the standards and quickly return to normal so that there is no “legitimate use of force ”and unilateral or plurilateral interventions, since the sovereign will be the one who is capable, over the abnormality, in order to suspend the legal order in whole or in part and with the purpose of restoring normality.

The Re-Emergence of Conquest: International Law and the Legitimate Use of Force

The re-emergence of the issue of conquest of territory is one of the most contentious debates surrounding contemporary international law. This article investigates certain developments in respect territorial conquests and the reaction of the international community to such acts. There is analysis of the key relationship between conquest and empire and speculates on the possibility that the re-emergence of conquest is further evidence that international society is reverting to a previous incarnation whereby Great Power politics is assuming its former pre-eminence, at the expense of the rules-based system which emerged after the Second World War. The article places conquest within the wider context of international law whilst discussing historical occurrences and contemporary instances.

Is the Killing of Qasem Soleimani by the United States of America Legal Under International Law?

General Qasem Soleimani, the Commander of Iran’s Quds Force was killed on 3rd January 2020 near Baghdad airport by a US drone strike. In the wake of the killing which has escalated tensions in the ever-volatile Middle East, one of the predominant questions has been on the legality or otherwise of the US strike. As a justification of the strikes, Trump’s Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo and other senior officials of the Trump administration have maintained that shortly before his killing, General Soleimani was planning multiple attacks on US military bases and diplomats in the Middle East. They also argue that the planned attacks on US interests were imminent and the killing was to disrupt the planned attacks and to deter future attacks. Trump also stated that the attack was not to start a war with Iran but to avoid a war. The argument advanced by the US is that of self-defense which is a legitimate use of force in international law. While the US is yet to make the evidence of the imminence of the planned attacks public, the imminent attacks argument is advanced to confer legality on the killing. Assuming there was an imminent threat of attack on US interests as claimed by Trump and senior administration officials, the question is whether the imminence of the planned attacks confers on the US a right of preemptive self-defense which renders the killing legal under international. This article seeks to answer this question through an analysis of the current normative order on use of force and the doctrine of self defense under international law.

Southeast Regional Middle East and Islamic Studies Society (SERMEISS): Workshop on Islam and Law

Workshop on Islam and Law Michael T. Samuel (bio) The Southeast Regional Middle East and Islamic Studies Society (SERMEISS) held its spring meeting on "Workshop on Islam and Law" at Emory University, Atlanta, GA, on March 6–8, 2020. The workshop represented a new innovative format for the organization's spring meeting. Unlike previous meetings, which included presentations on a wide range of topics related to the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region and Islamic studies, this workshop focused exclusively on topics related to Islam and law—that is, the ways in which Islamic law, jurists, and legal institutions shape and are shaped by the normative reality of Islam and Islamic societies. It consisted of four panel sessions that analyzed practical and theoretical aspects of Islam and law. The workshop began on the morning of Saturday, March 7th with a panel session on Islam and Law in Historical Perspective. Mansour Salsabili, a fellow at the Center for Middle Eastern Studies, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, opened the session with a paper on "Religiosity and Violence: Shiite Ulamas' Contending Responses to the Secular Educational Modernization and the 1906 Constitutional Revolution." According to Salsabili, a comparative analysis of mid-nineteenth century fatwas issued by conservative and proreform Shiite ulama signifies a "unique episode" in the history of Iran. Comparing the positions of two prominent ayatollahs during the period of the Constitutional Revolution (1905–1911), he argued that Aḵūnd Mollā Moḥammad-Kāẓem Ḵorāsānī (1839–1911) and Shaikh Fażl-Allāh Nuri (1843–1909) vehemently disagreed about what could constitute a legitimate use of force, a disagreement that had "vast sociopolitical implications" in [End Page 152] Iran. Salsabili demonstrated that these conflicting views stemmed from "the competition between conservative and reformist clergies" over supporters and followers in Iranian society. The second panelist, Alexander Thurston, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH, gave a talk on "Fiqh Polemics and Power in Early Postcolonial Mauritania." Through an examination of a polemical book published in the mid-1960s by the former mufti of Mauritania, Buddah al-Busayri (1920–2009), entitled Asna al-Masalik fi Anna Man 'Amila bi-l-Rajih Ma Kharaja 'an Madhhab al-Imam Malik (The Brightest of Paths: He Who Works with the Preponderant Evidence Has Not Left the School of Imam Malik) which advocated for a "correct way to perform the ritual prayer (salah)," Thurston argued that the book was a "proxy for much wider struggles over power and politics … between reformist activists, traditionalist scholars, and modernist state functionaries," who sought to define the nature of law in the emerging Islamic Republic of Mauritania. Next was a presentation on "Islamic Family Law in Post-Reformist Iran: Progressions and Regressions" by Samaneh Oladi Ghadikolaei, assistant professor, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA. This paper highlighted that, contrary to popular perception, female activists have been able to influence the legislative process of family law during the period that followed the establishment of the Islamic Republic of Iran. After analyzing the changes that were implemented by the regime in the legal age of marriage and the rules of guardianship (wāli), Oladi Ghadikolaei asserted that female activists "propagat[ed] [a] culture of egalitarianism that merg[ed] social science with religious science that was neither unjust nor male-centered." The second panel session which highlighted Islam and Law in Theory and Practice began with a paper on "Maqasid al-Shariah: A Muslim Perspective on Human Rights" by Faroukh Hakeem, associate professor, North Carolina Agricultural and Technical State University, Greensboro, NC. As Hakeem described, Maqasid al-Shariah (goals and objectives of Islamic law) is the Islamic legal doctrine that is concerned with protecting human rights, which includes all aspects of daily life and the preservation of faith. Hakeem stated that although "words such as Haqq/Huquq are often translated as rights, its implications are not the same when compared to the Western idea of rights. Under the Islamic conception, Haqq (rights) also imply obligations, and more specifically the distribution of the bonds of indebtedness that exist between sentient human beings in society." This system of rights and obligations, he continued, "is highly organized and developed." Moreover, Hakeem asserted that human rights as they are recognized...

The Legitimate Use of Force for Self-Deference under International Law: A Literature Review

The Legitimate Use of Force for Self-Deference under International Law: A Literature Review